'TRUSTING THE OTHER: GENERALIZED TRUST IN DIVIDED SOCIETIES'

(1)

G

RADUATE

S

CHOOL IN

S

OCIAL AND

P

OLITICAL

S

CIENCES

D

EPARTMENT OF

S

OCIAL AND

P

OLITICAL

S

CIENCES

P

H

.

D. P

ROGRAM IN

P

OLITICAL

S

TUDIES

-

XXVIII

C

OHORT

P

H

.

D. D

ISSERTATION

“Trusting the Other: Generalized Trust in Divided Societies”

D

ISCIPLINARY

S

CIENTIFIC

S

ECTOR

:

SPS/04

S

UPERVISOR

:

P

ROF

.

A

LESSIA

D

AMONTE

P

H

.

D. C

ANDIDATE

:

A

BDALHADI

A

LIJLA

D

IRECTOR

:

P

ROF

.

F

RANCESCO

Z

UCCHINI

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of Social and Political Science for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

(2)

UNIVERSITÀ

DEGLI

STUDI

DI

MILANO

G

RADUATE

S

CHOOL IN

S

OCIAL AND

P

OLITICAL

S

CIENCES

D

EPARTMENT OF

S

OCIAL AND

P

OLITICAL

S

CIENCES

P

H

.

D. P

ROGRAM IN

P

OLITICAL

S

TUDIES

-

XXVIII

C

OHORT

P

H

.

D. D

ISSERTATION

D

ISCIPLINARY

S

CIENTIFIC

S

ECTOR

:

SPS/04

S

UPERVISOR

:

P

ROF

.

A

LESSIA

D

AMONTE

P

H

.

D. C

ANDIDATE

:

A

BDALHADI

A

LIJLA

D

IRECTOR

:

P

ROF

.

F

RANCESCO

Z

UCCHINI

(3)

T

UTOR

:

P

ROF

.

A

LESSIA

D

AMONTE

U

NIVERSITY OF

M

ILANO

D

OCTORAL

C

OMMITTEE

:

P

ROF

.

L

UCA

V

ERZICHELLI

U

NIVERSITÀ DI

S

IENA

P

ROF

.

L

UCIANO

F

ASANO

U

NIVERSITY OF

M

ILANO

P

ROF

.

R

OSITA

D

I

P

ERI

(4)

Giuliano Regeni's job was searching for the truth. He

studied and researched in order to better understand this

world. He never gave up. And we don't have to give up now:

we must ask for truth and justice, for him and all the victims

of conspiracy and State crimes.

Il lavoro di Giuliano Regeni era la ricerca della verità.

Studiava e faceva ricerche per capire meglio questo mondo.

Non si è mai arreso e noi dobbiamo fare altrettanto:

dobbiamo pretendere la verità e la giustizia, per lui e per

tutte le vittime di cospirazioni e crimini di Stato

(5)

Declaration

I certify that the dissertation I have presented for examination for the PhD

degree of the Graduate School of Social and Political Science is solely my own

work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others. No

part of the dissertation has been previously submitted to any university for any

degree, diplomas, or other qualifications.

(6)

Acknowledgements

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the help of many individuals. I am grateful to all those who have provided encouragement and support during the whole PhD process, both learning and writing.

First, my deepest gratitude and appreciation goes to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Alessia Damonte, for her guidance and continued confidence in my work throughout my PhD studies. During times of confusion, she was always there with constant help. Through numerous supervision meetings and email guidance, she assisted me to complete this research successfully. It has been a great pleasure for me to be one of her students, and it has made my time studying as a PhD student at State University of Milan most enjoyable and one of the most precious experiences of my life.

Second, I would like to thank all my good friends in Sweden: Prof. Staffan Lindberg for his support and hosting me at Gothenburg university for a year. Throughout the year, I have learned a lot and used the huge amount of data collected by the V-dem Institute. I would never have been able to write my case studies with such insight without their incredible help.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a special thank you to Prof. Francesco Zucchini, the political studies PhD program coordinator for his effort and time during the first and second year. At UNIMI, it was not just a financial incentive I received with this award, but also great encouragement in my research, as well as the spirit of giving and sharing that I learnt from the faculty.

Finally yet most importantly, my ultimate love and gratitude to my family: my dearest parents in Palestine whom I have not seen for a decade, my mother Intisar and my father Mahmoud, who always have great faith in me and to whom I owe everything; To my sisters and brothers, Prof. Akram, Iyad, Mohammed, Nahed and Randa, for always being there to support me. I also want to thank my beloved friend, Romana Rubeo for her support up until the very end and in the darkest times. My final gratitude goes Samah Saleh, a dear and cherished colleague and friend, for her continuous feedback, support and consistently being a shoulder to lean on.

(7)

Abstract

In this thesis I aim to examine the influence of institutional conditions on the level of generalized trust in divided societies. I argue through this thesis that institutions in divided societies are an important source of social trust in the long term and can easily destroy the level of social trust in societies if designed ineffectively and prove to be unfair and unequal. In general, the findings suggest that equal and fair public institutions are crucial to the social mechanism of trust.

In this thesis I relied on a mixed methods approach based on qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was used to answer the question of: to what the extent do institutional conditions have an effect on trust, using eight case studies. Regression analysis, backed with the case-study analysis was used to offer in-depth analysis of the case of Lebanon. This thesis provides empirical evidence that institutions have a substantial impact on the level of trust between strangers within a divided society.

In this research I have developed a conceptual framework from several relevant bodies of literature, mainly theories of social capital and generalized trust, that have been used as basis for the analysis. The QCA analysis shows that fair institutions with an effective and independent judicial and legal system, and an efficient non-sectarian civil society can maintain the level of generalized trust in divided societies and may contribute to more trust in the society. The QCA also shows that the absence of equality and fairness in formal institutions and the absence of public deliberation and consultation, including civil society, have a greater negative impact on generalized trust in divided societies.

I conclude that institutions in divided societies play an important role in maintaining and even building social trust in the long run, but they can also be detrimental to the level of social trust in societies if designed ineffectively and prove to be unfair and unequal. The findings suggest that equal and fair public institutions are crucial to the social mechanism of trust.

(8)

(9)

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Structure of the thesis 12

Figure 4.1 Grouping of case studies 68

Figure 5.1 The Causal Mechanism of Institutions and

Generalized Trust 89

Figure 6.1 Trust in Lebanon 2007, 2011, 2013 127 Figure 6.2 Obtaining Jobs through connections

(Clientelism)

131

Figure 6.3 The most important challenges facing Lebanon today (2010/2013)

132

Figure 6.4 Main priorities related to democracy in Lebanon

132

Figure 6.5 Generalized Trust and Institutional Conditions in Lebanon

135

Figure 6.6 How equally are you being treated? 141 Figure 6.7 Generalized Trust and Institutions in

Lebanon: Causal Mechanism

(13)

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Four theories of trust and their related arguments 34 Table 4.1 Research Strategies in Different Situations 53

Table 4.2 Cases and Selection Criteria 61

Table 4.3 Sources of Data and Evidences Source 62 Table 4.4 Case Study Tactics for Research Design Tests 72 Table 5.1 Typologies of Research on Social Capital and Generalized

Trust

80

Table 5.2 Institutions and Generalized Trust 85 Table 5.3

Explanans (Institutional Determinants) 98 Table 5.4

Explanandum Description (Outcome) 103

Table 5.5 Raw data from V-Dem, QoG and WVS 103

Table 5.6 Data matrix 104

Table 5.7 Causal recipes accounting for a high score of generalized trust

106

Table 5.8 Causal recipes accounting for low score of generalized trust

107

Table 6.1

Explanatory conditions used in analysis 128 Table 6.2 Four Models of Generalized Trust and Institutions

(14)

Abbreviations

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

CSO Civil Society Organizations QCA Qualitative Comparative Analysis QoG Quality of Government Institute NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

UN United Nations

V-Dem Varieties of Democracy Institute

WVS World Value Survey

SNSD Alliance of Independent Social Democrats in Bosnia OHR High Representative of Bosnia and Herzegovina

GFPA The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina

GT Index Generalized Trust Index

(15)

(16)

Chapter 1 Introduction

“In divided society, institutions reflect trust among different people. Institutions in divided societies are the link or the rope between these different ethnicities, if institutions work well, people will have trust and share an important value, if not, they will be fragmented and will not trust their own neighbors from different ethnicities”

Velma Saric

1.1 Point of Departure

This thesis discusses the influence of institutions on the level of generalized trust in divided societies. It asks why there are different levels of trust in divided societies and how formal institutions affect this paradigm. Generalized trust is understood as trust in random strangers without having a prior relationship or experience with them (Hardin 2001). Despite its importance and the role it plays in various social contexts, there is no consensus among social scientists on the definition of generalized trust (Barber 1983).

Trust is a key element not only on an individual level, but also at a community level. It is important in sustaining peace and works as a trigger to ending conflicts as well. It facilitates social coordination and interaction between individuals who have had no previous social interaction (Gambetta 1988). Despite the fact that this type of interaction is risky, in that one does not know its consequences, trust that leads to this kind of new interaction can effectively building bridges and be a catalyst for acquiring information. This kind of interaction is vital in post-conflict reconciliation processes where different ethnicities and

(17)

groups need to interact, creating a public sphere and debate as to which institutions they want and what kind of political system they desire.

Generalized trust is also considered a coercive method of control over social behavior (Coleman 1990). Moreover, social capital, of which generalized trust is considered to form a significant part, is believed to play a significant role in the development of democratic institutions (Foley, Putnam, and Edwards 2001). Additionally, social capital and trust contribute to peace building and hinder conflict in divided societies (Michaelene Cox 2008). Therefore, maintaining the level of generalized trust among people in divided societies throughout the reconciliation process becomes necessary. Considering historical, cultural and societal factors, institutions (both formal and informal) become the focus of the reconciliation process in divided societies.

The first step in rebuilding states and societies is designing and building viable institutions. There is consensus among social scientists that institutions are crucial to state-building in the aftermath of civil war or internal violence (Schindler 2010). Civil war and ethnic violence can destroy not only communities, but also institutions, leaving whole societies in ruins. Once conflict ceases, there is always a need to establish and redesign institutions to accommodate new realities and meet the requirements of the conflicting parties based on the conflict-ending agreements (e.g. Altaef agreement in Lebanon)1. A large number of studies focus on institutional building (e.g. UN Report in State in Crisis and Post Conflict Countries 2007) as well as reconfigurations that are needed to adapt to the new state of the war-torn or divided society. Attention is often given to the crucial element of trust, by advocating that these institutions are designed to work transparently and effectively, with an aim to boost social trust between the different hostile groups (Bar-Siman-Tov 2011).

(18)

In democracies, institutions are the pillar of the society that is characterized by cohesion and absence of conflict. In divided societies, ethno-national elements complicate the situation, presenting a challenge for institutional and state-building. One of the major goals in divided societies is the rebuilding of viable, multi-ethnic societies. This thesis focuses on how institutions in divided societies work and influence the level of generalized trust, which, in turn, impacts lasting peace between previously in-conflict groups.

1.2 Background

Divided societies are challenged by history, culture, tradition, war and fragmentation, which create a low level of generalized trust and hence, a low level of social capital.

Social capital and generalized trust are two different concepts, yet generalized trust forms the major part of social capital. Therefore, many scholars tend to use the two interchangeably, a practice that will be discussed in more detail in the subsequent section. The term 'social capital' was first used by Glenn to refer to social inheritance in familial inter-personal relations (Portes 1998), although the recent development of the concept of social capital can be attributed to Bourdieu (1985), Coleman (1988) and Putnam & Weil (1993). According to Bourdieu, social capital is the “aggregate of real or potential resources that are associated to the possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relations of mutual recognition” (Bourdieu 1985: 248). Coleman (1988) argues that two key features characterize social capital: consisting of some aspect of the social structure, and facilitating certain actions by individuals who are situated within this structure. These actions can be: building social networks, the acquisition of information, or the use of social cooperative norms and values. However, social capital has also been structurally defined as: generalized trust, access to membership in various types of networks, and norms of reciprocity (Coleman 1988; Putnam 1993a). In other words, social capital is interpreted as

(19)

the degree of trust, co-operative norms, associational memberships, and networks within a society.

The literature on social capital, and, consequently, literature on generalized trust, has been divided into two main streams. On one side, there are scholars who argue that generalized trust variations depend on society-centric approaches (Fukuyama 2001; Martti Siisiäinen 2000). This means that generalized trust is inherited from historical, cultural and societal norms and values. On the other hand, there are scholars who support the institution-centric approach. This theory argues that for social capital to flourish, and generalized trust to increase, it needs to be embedded in and linked to the political context of a state as well as its formal political and legal institutions (Berman 1997; Kumlin and Rothstein 2005; Levi 1998; Tarrow 1996). According to these scholars, generalized trust can be created as a result of the policies and legal frameworks of political institutions.

1.3 Divided Societies and Trust

Divided, mixed or ethnically fractured societies are frequently torn apart by ethnic, political or nationalistic conflicts. The management of these societies is characterized by complexities caused by aspirations of the various ethnic groups to have their own political, cultural and societal institutions. Often, these aspirations are in conflict with each other and may lead to a decrease in trust under unequal and unfair institutional conditions, such as preferential public administration, biased public officers or particularistic public services. These are institutional conditions that favor specific ethnicities or groups of people, which leads to inequality in services, opportunities and other public goods.

This research will examine the impact of specific institutional conditions on generalized trust. For example, common bureaucratic practices may have a greater effect on the level of generalized trust than power-sharing institutions/institutional factors in a divided society.

(20)

This is because individuals recognize inequality and fairness from daily encounters with bureaucracy in local administrative procedures.

Trust in divided societies is a sensitive, yet intriguing topic that researchers have studied in an attempt to understand why one might trust strangers in a society in which multiple ethnicities and cultures exists and are often in conflict with one another. Moreover, variations in the level of generalized trust in divided societies can be fascinating in that they can provide a complex and detailed understanding of the possible connections between institutions, context, and cultural factors on the one hand and generalized trust on the other hand.

There is evidence to suggest that institutions are crucial to the creation of generalized trust (Rothstein and Stolle 2008). Generalized trust is positively associated with well-functioning institutions, public policies, and quality of governments (Knack and Keefer 1997; Peyrefitte 1996; La Porta et al. 1997; Putnam 1993a). The relevance of generalized trust to institutions lies in its capacity and ability to resolve problems of collective action, such as the provision of various forms of public goods, and avoiding a situation known as a 'social trap' in which short-term benefits for some groups of society have longer-term, often negative consequences for other groups or the society as a whole (Kumlin and Rothstein 2005). Moreover, equality and fairness of formal institutions in divided societies can serve as the link between trust and institutions. Therefore, institutions are important mechanisms in influencing the creation or destruction of generalized trust.

Arguments for generalized trust are based on the literature on social capital, which highlights generalized trust as the principal component in social capital (Coleman 1988; Fukuyama 2001; Putnam 1993a). The basic argument is that the performance of public sector institutions and implementation of sound and fair policies can enhance the level of

(21)

generalized trust among citizens in divided societies.

I consider generalized trust to be social capital, or the main component of social capital. The reason for this is that individuals in any society can be members of associations, organizations and networks that consist of people who lack trust. Moreover, most definitions of social capital consider networks and associational membership as part of social capital. Arguably, and based on the cultural experience of the researcher, a divided society may have a high degree of memberships in associations and face-to-face interaction with strangers while simultaneously having a low level of generalized trust. Moreover, associations and NGOs in many divided societies, for example Lebanon and BiH, contribute negatively to the level of generalized trust as many of these NGOs are sectarian-based. Thus, members are polarized rather than being part of building bridges and advancing cooperation with other sects or members from other sects. This is clear in tribal societies such as Iraq, Jordan and the Arabian Gulf. In addition to this, members who lack trust usually play a destructive role in the other components of social capital and negatively affect the existence of other values related to social capital (Rothstein and Stolle 2008).

Many scholars study generalized trust not as part of social capital, but rather as making up the entirety of social capital, arguing that generalized trust and social capital are synonymous (Brehm and Rahn 1997; Wilson 1997). They study social capital and its various effects, sources and consequences from different perspectives. For instance, from an economic perspective, social capital is considered a positive element in economic prosperity and growth. For the political scientist, social capital is important to the process of democratization. Social capital generates a feeling among citizens, despite their ethnicities or sects, of mutual respect and responsibility for their actions and gives them a sense of a shared future. For instance, Putnam, who studied the decentralization process in Italy,

(22)

concluded that the level of social capital in different regions determined how well democracy worked.

As social scientists try to examine social capital and generalized trust in developing countries, they end up focusing mostly on the cultural aspect, as there is little empirical data that covers an extensive period of time. Therefore, most scholars do most of these studies focusing largely on democracies where data are available for a long period of time (Kesler and Bloemraad 2010).

There have been very few studies that examine social capital and generalized trust in divided societies. These have taken place mostly post-war during the period of nation building from a peace and conflict perspective, such as in Lebanon, Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Macedonia (Hakansson and Sjoholm 2007). In cases where divided societies were challenged by a lack of trust among the public, institutions had to be designed in order to adapt to the new realities, build trust among people, and increase confidence in political institutions.

This research proposes that a major source of generalized trust in divided societies can be found in state machinery, namely, the legal and administrative institutions of the states. The question asked is: “Why would unfair, corrupt, inefficient and biased practices in the administrative and legal machinery of the state influence the level of trust in their society?”

The intent of this thesis is to fill the gap in the discourse of generalized trust and institutions, providing empirical evidence that institutions have various levels of influence on generalized trust. The effects of institutions on generalized trust has been derived using a cross-case study analysis in eight societies: Lebanon, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pakistan, Turkey, Macedonia, South Africa, Kyrgyzstan, and Iraq. The research hypothesis is that

(23)

institutions have an effect and can be a major source for maintaining the level of generalized trust in divided societies.

Measuring generalized trust in relation to institutional societal factors will guide policy-makers and researchers to a wider understanding of the mechanism of generating and maintaining generalized trust.

1.4 Research Question and Hypothesis

In order to get an insight into generalized trust in divided societies, this research will conduct a comparative cross-case study, using the Qualitative Comparative Analysis method, and then refine the data with a single case study that focuses on Lebanon. The main question that this research aims to explore is:

“Under which institutions is generalized trust in a divided society maintained or destroyed, and how does this happen?”

Hypothesis

Following previous studies, my hypothesis is that various institutional conditions could be empirically modeled as determinants of generating or destroying generalized trust. The research tests one main hypothesis related to the effect of institutions on generalized trust. The main hypothesis is that generalized trust is associated with formal institutions.

In other words, trust is associated with three main factors. The first of these factors is institutional conditions (unbiased public administration, equality in providing public services, universality of public goods, feelings of safety and security, and policy-making decentralization). The second is the societal institutional conditions (public deliberation, activation, and creation of civil society). Last is a special governmental design (monopoly of power, and whether the judiciary is given a role as a potential avenue of influencing

(24)

trust). These factors reflect easily how individual experiences in the society in respect to equality and fairness are based on interactions with institutions.

As more research is being conducted on generalized trust and social capital and the important role they play in developing society, the process and conditions in which generalized trust is generated or destroyed in a divided society remain empirically unexplored. Given the complexity and diversity of divided societies, where some are still in the process of reconciliation and post-conflict reconstruction, it is crucial that institutions are designed and implemented with full consideration of ethnic, political and reconciliatory circumstances. This is especially important regarding how these policies at state-level or city-level would directly impact the level of generalized trust.

1.5 Thesis Structure and Overview

This thesis is structured into seven chapters (see Figure 1.1). Following the introduction given in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 consists of a literature review on social capital and its link to generalized trust. It describes the different components of social capital and examines how and why they develop. In one part of the literature review, studies on generalized trust and institutions are examined. This identifies institutional conditions as a gap in the existing literature on social capital and generalized trust. Chapter 3 introduces generalized trust, its concepts, different theories, and where this thesis stands. It is also the point at which the link between generalized trust and institutions is made.

Building upon the literature and theory review, Chapter 4 begins by identifying major research gaps and formulating research questions. This is followed by an alignment of various elements of research design with the nature of the inquiry, which has to do with the selection of the case studies. Research design covering data collection, data analysis

(25)

procedures, and research quality assurance are also presented in this chapter, as well as a discussion of the challenges and activities involved in conducting research in practice.

Chapter 5 presents the main analysis of the thesis. It is a cross-case study using a QCA approach to find the combination of institutional conditions that effect, in higher measures, the level of trust. It presents and discusses different findings from various cases studies, with a focus on the institutional conditions used in the analysis.

Chapter 6 discusses in detail the Lebanese case study and how institutional condiitons influence the level of generalized trust. Using a single case study approach, backed by quantitative analysis from the Arab barometer dataset, this chapter selects a few variables that represent the institutional conditions (based on the findings of Chapter 5) and discusses them thoroughly, as to how they affect generalized trust in Lebanon as a divided society. In this chapter, analysis shows that institutions and trust in institutional performance, especially the inequality in receiving public services and the feeling of insecurity, increase the level of distrust within the Lebanese population.

Finally, Chapter 7 draws together the key research findings and translates them into implications for both theory and practice. It also acknowledges research limitations and indicates directions for future research.

(26)

Figure 1.1 Structure of the thesis Chapter 1 | IntroducCon Chapter 2 |Social Capital in Divided SocieCes Chapter 3 |Generalized Trust in Divided SocieCe Chapter 4 | Research Methodology Chapter 5 | Institutional Determinants and Genralzied Trust Chapter 6 |Between Inequality and Sectarianism: Who Destroys Generalized Trust? Chapter 7 | Conclusion

(27)

CHAPTER 2 SOCIAL CAPITAL: WHERE TRUST BEGINS

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter I will review the key literature and theoretical approaches to the themes that I investigate in this thesis. Beginning with the definition of social capital, it draws the link to the different theories of formation and how generalized trust and social capital can be interchangeably used. It focuses on the Hanifan, Putnam, Bourdieu and Coleman definition and explanation of social capital and its link to generalized trust. As such, I will consider literature examining social capital and generalized trust in general, deducing a working definition that paves the way to the theme of this thesis.

2.2 Social Capital’s Origin and Definitions

There is a huge body of literature that discusses and focuses on social capital, but this literature fails to offer a unified definition. It is always problematic to arrive at a definition because the concept is flexible, allowing researchers to use it according to their field and specialty. For example, economists tend to use a slightly different definition than political scientists or sociologists. However, all scientists recognize that definitions of social capital differ across various disciplines in academia. In this chapter, I will review the key literature and theoretical approaches to the themes that I investigate in this thesis, the first challenge being to find a definition for social capital. I will also introduce different theories of social capital, how this concept was developed and its origin.

(28)

In the past, the usage of social capital as a concept was limited to a local level, whether one country or society, after which it moved beyond the local level to become a global term used in the arenas of the UN, international NGOs, states and global agencies (Lane 2006). Therefore, the emergence of global social capital leads us to think beyond borders to a form of social capital where ethnicities across countries share it, even though they are located in different countries.

Many scholars argue that social capital appeared in the works of Aristotle and later Alexis de Tocqueville, Durkheim and Adam Smith (Bahmani-Oskooee, Mohsen, Miguel-Ángel Galindo 2009). Traces of the concept of social capital can be found in the literature of Adam Smith. A clear and direct mention of social capital appeared in 1916 by Lyda Hanifan, a fact which most researchers and scientists agree upon. Moreover, measurement of social capital, social networks, generalized trust and cooperation can be traced back to ancient philosophies, even though these bear no relation to the modern concept of social capital (Farr 2004).

The debate among political scientists on one definition of social capital has led to the birth of many definitions and measurements of the concept itself. However, there is a consensus among political scientists and sociologists that social capital has become one of the prominent area of study and will develop even further in due course (Lin, Nan, Karen S. Cook, and Ronald S. Burt 2001). Moreover, it became a big part of political science after Robert Putnam attempted to measure social capital and prove that it has a beneficial impact on democracy. Social capital has proven to be linked to the functioning of democracy, civil society, public policy and development. It acts as a catalyst to increase political participation and implement public policies (Fukuyama 2001). In the next section, I will explain the different definitions and theories of social capital.

(29)

2.2.1 Hanifan’s definition

Lyda Hanifan referred to social capital as such:

“In the use of the phrase social capital I make no reference to the usual acceptation of the term capital, except in a figurative sense. I do not refer to real estate, or to personal property or to cold cash, but rather to that in life which tends to make these tangible substances count for most in the daily lives of a people, namely, goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit, the rural community, whose logical center is the school. In community building as in business organization and expansion there must be an accumulation of capital before constructive work can be done.” (Hanifan 1916: 9)

Hanifan's definition of social capital is based on its non-physical assets, placing greater emphasis on social solidarity, goodwill, trust and other intangible assets. He uses this definition to support his argument about community participation in rural areas, and makes the argument that the lack of such capital in rural districts is of high significance and society must seek ways to improve the conditions of this capital. His argument, as a pedagogist, is aimed at not only developing schools but also a wider societal atmosphere whereby developing social capital would lead to the development of the economy, culture and values. He tested this argument in West Virginia where he tried to build trust and increase social networks among a population there. Before the start of semester, he held meetings with the community, trying to advance the quality of the school. Subsequent meetings in the rural areas developed a discussion of wider issues in the society with these meetings serving as a community center (Hanifan 1916).

The concept of social capital was developed through a process of dialogue with scientists and researchers contributing gradually, yet significantly to the concept and literature during different periods of time. Each addition or new definition was linked to the discipline in which it was used. Studying the background of scholars who tried to define social capital

(30)

will assist in knowing how, why, and where (in terms of discipline) the definition comes from. As Schuler argues, social capital’s development has been strengthened and developed due to the contribution of three scientists; Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam (Schuller, Baron, and Field 2000).

2.2.2 Bourdieu’s Formulation

Pierre Bourdieu used the term social capital in his article, “The Forms of Capital” where he defined social capital differently:

“Social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” (Bourdieu 1992: 119)

Therefore, according to Bourdieu, social capital consists of two main components: (1) association memberships and social networks, and (2) mutual cognition and recognition. He argues, "The volume of social capital possessed by a given agent ... depends on the size of the network of connections that he can effectively mobilize." (Bourdieu 1986: 249) Bourdieu argues it is the quality of the outcomes that are produced and the strength and quality of the relationships between the different actors, not the quality of the group itself that determines social capital. He argues that membership in groups and involvement in social networks can be used to improve the social position of the actors in different social fields or classes. One manifestation of these groups is voluntary associations such as trade unions, political parties, etc. Bourdieu uses this to enforce his arguments on the 'theory of symbolic power'. He argues that differences in social capital can be realized at different levels of cultural and economic capital. In reality, his argument is based on the different level of powers actors have on social capital. He asserts that social capital has a 'multiplication effect' on the influence of other forms of capital (Bourdieu 1985).

(31)

Associations and groups create bonds of solidarity among members and institutionalize the capital they preserve. Therefore, voluntary association can be seen as a facet of social capital as it is a kind of resource, produced by association in a collective manner, and shared by its members.

According to Bourdieu, capital is a transformative phenomenon that can be converted from one form to another based on time and context. The economic, social and symbolic "profit" as a result of belonging to the association establishes a base for the growth of solidarity. The development of social networks is dependent both on individual subjective feelings in terms of recognition, respect, and communality, and on the institutional guarantees afforded by the organization.

The second characteristic of social capital according to Bourdieu is a symbolic one, with mutual recognition and cognition as the source. He argues that differences between social classes have to be transformed to symbolic differences to function as effective social capital. According to him, capital can be seen as a distribution of economic, social and cultural assets on paper and to be more effective, it has to be depicted as symbolic differences (Bourdieu 1985).

“Symbolic capital ... is nothing other than capital, in whatever form, when perceived by an agent endowed with categories of perception arising from the internalization (embodiment) of the structure of its distribution, i.e. when it is known and recognized as self-evident" (Bourdieu 1985a: 204 ).

Bourdieu draws a line between the concept of symbolic capital and legitimate capital. Symbolic capital defines what forms and uses of capital are recognized as legitimate bases of social positions in a given society. It seems that Bourdieu is defining social capital in relation to a theory of symbolic power where he differentiates between different forms of

(32)

Marxist influence in Bourdieu's work as he discusses social class and symbolic power. However, he added the intangible dimension of capital, as opposed to Marx who focused on economic and tangible resources.

The effectiveness of symbolic capital depends on real practices of communication. Symbolic capital cannot be institutionalized, objectified or incorporated into the habitus. Symbolic capital exists only in the 'eyes of the others'. “It gives the legitimized forms of distinction and classification a taken-for-granted character, and thus conceals the arbitrary way in which the forms of capital are distributed among individuals in society.” (See Martti Siisiäinen 2000, Bourdieu 1986; Joppke 1987, 60).

Where other writers see social capital as a fundamentally heartwarming network of social connections, Bourdieu instead uses it to explain the cold realities of social inequality. Here, social capital reflects the very worst side of the saying, ‘It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.’ His term points towards a world where the elite jobs go to posh men who attend exclusive schools. Bourdieu could very well be right – in fact, studies of social mobility continue to show that, to varying degrees, this is what indeed happens (Gauntlett 2011).

2.3 Coleman’s Development of Social Capital’s Concept

Coleman’s definition of social capital is close to that of Bourdieu; however, the point of departure and contribution is different. Like Bourdieu, Coleman links social capital to economics. He aims to combine the insights of sociology and economic theory, seeing social capital as a way of making sense of the overly rational and individualistic models of traditional economics.

(33)

“Social capital consists of some aspect of social structure, and facilitates certain actions of actors- whether persons or corporate actors-within the structure” (Coleman 1988: 98).

Coleman introduces social capital by outlining two broad intellectual disciplines in the description and explanation of social action. The first is the sociological approach, which sees the individual in a social and cultural environment, subject to norms, rules, and obligations. The second is the economic approach, which is about self-interested, independent individuals seeking to fulfill their goals. He fits his theory within the functionalist view of social action, which is conditioned by social structure and rational theory and suggest that actors’ goals can be achieved by the utility-maximizing doctrine of self-interest.

In Coleman’s model social capital is a resource which actors in any given society can use, similar to other resources such as human capital, physical capital, economic capital, the exception being that social capital is not owned by individuals, but comes instead as a set of collective resources available to them, giving it clear instrumental purpose. Coleman sees social capital as essentially residing in the social structure of relationships among people. However, he also sees social capital as a bonding mechanism that adds to the levels of integration in social structures, where social capital can be embedded as a resource. For example, if you live in a street where you can rely on your neighbor to take care of your garden and trees while you are away, then you have access to this form of capital, social capital, which other people in another neighborhoods do not have access to. Furthermore, this kind of resource cannot be sold or given. To be able to enjoy its privileges, you are required move to the area and become a member of that neighborhood. You must establish connections and relationships with neighbours, all of which takes time and effort in order to develop this kind of resource. All of this is necessary simply because social capital is a

(34)

collaborative manner by people in these communities. For Coleman, social capital is a resource that relies on people who look at society from a collective perspective, who perform supportive and helpful actions because they believe in the general good and in solidarity with their fellow citizens. Coleman can’t quite reconcile this with the kind of rational action that his theory assumes:

“Social capital is an important resource for individuals and may affect greatly their ability to act and their perceived quality of life. They have the capability of bringing it into being. Yet, because the benefits of actions that bring social capital into being are largely experienced by persons other than the actor, it is often not in his interest to bring it into being.” (Coleman 1988: 118)

For Coleman, social capital shares with financial capital an ease of making the micro-macro transition. Social capital infuses value into the aspects of social structure that become resources at the disposal of goal-seeking actors. As such, social capital can be used conceptually at both the micro and macro levels without requiring a separate theory of social structure working at the two levels of inquiry (Tzanakis 2013). Between Bourdieu and Coleman there are many differences, one of the primary ones being that Bourdieu considers social capital as reproduction of social inequality, though it may assist in integration and increased solidarity among specific groups. For Coleman, social capital is, somehow, of benefit to the general public, whereby any contribution by actors benefits the whole.

Coleman’s contention that resources, attitudes and norms such as trust and reciprocity or social networks and associations can be understood as social capital has received criticism. Foley and Edwards argue that social capital is dependent and therefore context-specific. Since context conditions the use, value and liquidity of social capital, every attempt to fix social capital into an integrative function, as in Coleman’s formulation, is severely

(35)

limited in scope (Foley and Edwards 1999). They stress that precisely because social capital is context-dependent, social resources are neither equitable nor evenly distributed. This is a point on which Coleman remains conspicuously silent. Shucksmith also rejects any treatment of social capital as a collective good. In his view, treating social capital as a collective good masks inherent inequalities in which assets are accessed and appropriated differentially by those who already have social and cultural capital (Shucksmith 2000).

2.4 Putnam’s Formula of Social Capital

Putnam’s work started a new discipline of research when he examined the concept of social capital in his well-known article “Making Democracy Work” in 1993 (Putnam 1993a). His aim was to understand democratic institutions and how they influence political and governmental practices. Bringing the concept of social capital to the discipline of political science grasped the attention of political and social scientists and increased the level of interest in the subject, widening its research agenda. For Putnam, social capital is ‘features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit’ (Putnam 1993b).

In his very well known work in Italy, he tried to examine the necessary conditions for the development of strong institutions and prosperous economy. His conclusion is that reform of Italian institutions in Northern Italy was a result of “civic community.” He asserted the same reason to be behind the economic prosperity in Northern Italy. In northern areas of Italy (compared to their southern counterparts), there are well-functioning local governments and a better economy because public engagement and activities have contributed to a level of cooperation between citizens. The atmosphere of societal cooperation, networks and participation are very much a mechanism of advancing the functions of local governments. Trust between citizens is a contributing factor to these characteristics of society (Putnam 1993b). Moreover, Putnam differentiates between vertical and horizontal patterns of how social allegiances are set up. He argues that, while in the

(36)

south, people were subjects, in the north, they were citizens.

Activities of civic community are measured in terms of voter turnouts, newspaper purchases and participation in associations and societal activities. Putnam’s final conclusion regarding the comparison between the north and the south is as follows:

"In the North the crucial social, political, and even religious allegiances and alignments were horizontal, while those in the South were vertical. Collaboration, mutual assistance, civic obligation, and even trust - not universal, or course, but extending further beyond the limits of kinship than anywhere else in Europe in this era - were the distinguishing features in the North. The chief virtue in the South, by contrast, was the imposition of hierarchy and order on latent anarchy" (Putnam 1993a: 130).

He examined the quality of civil society and political development based on what he calls “historical treasure.” In other words, “where you can get to depends on where you are coming from.” Therefore, according to Putnam’s argument, social capital is expressed in its sociological essence as community vitality.

For Putnam, forms of social capital are general moral resources of the community and can be divided into three main components: trust, social norms and social networks, particularly voluntary associations. He presents social capital as the amount of trust available in a given society, characterizing the political culture of modern society. Voluntary associations enable a horizontal linking of people, which produces trust/ generalized trust. This norm strengthens the level of interpersonal bonding. What matters here is that social capital can be measured by the level of “trust” in a community or between individuals. Adding to that, from an institutional perspective, social capital can be depicted as the organization (vertical or horizontal) that distributes and leverages trust, where the value of this kind of capital lies in the relations between different parts of society.

(37)

2.5 The Conundrum of Social Capital’s Source

The debate over the source of social capital continues as social scientists contribute to the literature. Many scholars argue that the bulk of social capital comes from institutions, mainly civil society institutions. This is in line with Putnam’s argument (Leicht 2000). Other scholars argue that social capital relies mainly on traditional associations such as family and close-circle relations. However, many scholars reject this argument. Instead, they see governmental design and institutions as sources of social capital. Other scholars argue that public policies are the source of social capital. For example, Linda Cook found that the government in Russia plays a role in maintaining and destroying social capital (Cook 2003). Others examine how authoritarianism destroys social capital by eroding generalized trust, and discouraging civic engagement (Booth and Richard 1998) .

Stolle argued that social capital resides in family, civil relations, civil society and political institutions (Stolle 2003). Later however, he and Rothstein argued that institutions have a greater impact on social capital (Rothstein and Stolle 2008). Here, Hans Westlund backs their argument, stating that social capital has sources in public and private institutions and resides in all social classes, especially in civil society (Westlund 2006).

In addition to numerous attempts in social science studies to define the source of social capital, there have been other scholars who have tried to examine it from different perspectives. This research argues that the differences in definitions and disagreements among scholars on the real source of social capital come from the different disciplines and areas of study that theorists belongs to. In this respect, political scientists define it from their perspective, economists define and examine it from their viewpoint and sociologists the same. However, the agreement among all scholars is that social capital does not belong to another kind of capital.

(38)

There are as many different theories of social capital and its resources as there are different theorists’ backgrounds. Schuller studied definitions and concepts of social capital from a different angle to Bourdieu, Putnam and Coleman. He argues that their definitions differ because they have different backgrounds. Despite this, all of them have one thing in common; the importance of social networks, and how social capital impacts health, education and crime (Schuller et al. 2000). Other scholars believe that there is no need to add a new capital to the existing one. However, that was when the concept of social capital was just emerging. As Kenneth Arrow says, there is no consensus among scientists that we need to add a new concept called social capital to existing forms of capital(Arrow, Kenneth 2000). Moreover, he went further on to argue that scientists must abandon the concept of social capital. He asserted that capital must rely on three dimensions: time elapses, sacrificing present resources for the future and transformative capability. Arrow’s study has not received much attention, as it did not look deeply into the causes of the disagreement and the ambiguity of social capital on which he rests his argument.

2.6 Social Capital’s Dilemma: Different Theories

As scientists continue to debate the definition, source, usage, measurement and emergence of social capital, there continues to be disagreement of its role in social, political and economic life. Scholars also try to falsify or find theoretical issues in the existing definition of social capital. As John Field discusses, social capital started as a simple concept and developed very rapidly to a more complex concept that focuses on people, their relationships and networks. As he argues, from that point, debates have been intense among scientists, which he asserts “is why the concept of social capital is limited, and may be defective” (Field 2003). Other scientists have taken radical positions by saying that social capital is not a concept. According to Babby and Leender, social capital assumes that actors

(39)

will get access to resources, as they participate in the community where these resources exist. For them, social capital theory focuses only on social resources in society and relationships among individuals. It is therefore an approach to study success and failure in a given society (Leenders 1999).

Other scholars consider social capital as a pattern to explain trust and cooperation in society. Paldam argues that many patterns explain how and why people build trust with one another and why they form social networks. He finds theories that explain cooperative behavior in all social science and economics fields and describes social capital as the glue that binds them all together. He categorizes the definition of social capital into three types: trust, cooperation and networks. He argues that trust facilitates voluntary cooperation between individuals, creating a strong correlation between social networks and trust. This thesis will follow these categories as many other researchers and scholars have done in the last two decades (Leenders 1999). Other scholars consider social capital as an approach developed to understand the interaction between formal and informal institutions (Moser 1999). Other researchers consider social capital as a mechanism to understand social and economic problems (Durlauf 2002).

Rose’s Categories of Social Capital’s Theories

2.6.1 Empirically Situational Approach

Social capital can be defined on a limited situational and contextual basis. It differs from one person to another and from one context to another. As Rose says, empirical theories of social capital assume that individuals rely on non-homogenous groups of networks. This depends on the conditions, incentives and actors. Since social networks change and

(40)

individuals differ from one situation to another, social capital cannot be defined as representing the whole society or group (Rose 2000).

2.6.2 Social Psychological Approach

This approach in examining and explaining social capital treats it as a social psychological capital, or cultural and traditional societal norms. As Welzel argues, social capital includes the culture of tolerance and trust that appears in broader social networks of any society as a consequence of increasing activism in voluntary association (Welzel, Inglehart, and Deutsch 2005). According to this approach, networks are a product of trust between the people more than trusts being a product of association. They argue that, as people trust each other more, they tend to interact more and form associations such as sport teams, music groups and other forms of associations, leading to an intensifying and increasing level of trust amongst them. Rose asserts that this group explains social capital as a set of cultural and traditional norms, whereby voluntary association/networks appear or increase as a result existing trust. At the least, trust and social capital are either the same or they are equal.

2.6.3 Cultural Approach

Cultural theory assumes homogeneity in social capital between individuals inside any given society. It argues that social capital exists at the same level across different societies with a similar culture. Rose refers to Fukuyama's study in which he sees social capital as static within any society without considering other institutional actors (Fukuyama 1995).

2.6.4 Two Measures: Between Consistency and Change

As we can see, Rose depends on two measures: firstly, social capital for individuals and secondly, contexts or situations. What Rose tries to conclude in his arguments is that social

(41)

capital depends on two changing measures which means social capital changes continuously. In an empirical approach, the two measures are in constant change, while in the psychological approach, the first measure -social capital on the scale of the individual- changes, while the second is static. The cultural approach on the other hand asserts that the two measures are static.

2.7 Generalized trust and Social Capital

When we argue about trust in society, we speak about the concept of “generalized trust.” Individuals usually do things out of good, not because they know each other or are rewarded on an individual basis, but because they trust that their own actions will be rewarded through a positive impact on the community. In a society, we need trust when we deal with strangers outside the family and close circle of relatives. Therefore, in order to leave the sphere of familiarity for a risky and complex environment, trust is needed (Luhmann 2000). Individual choices in daily life on the micro level produce mutual trust, reciprocity and higher type of trust on macro level that become an integrative value among the groups of strangers (Coleman 1988). Moreover, trust requires an intense social network and participation in different kinds of voluntary associations. As Seligman argues,

“The emphasis in modern societies on consensus (is) based on interconnected networks of trust - among citizens, families, voluntary organizations, religious denominations, civic associations, and the like. Similarly the very "legitimation" of modern societies is founded on the "trust" of authority and governments as generalizations” (Hausman and Seligman 1998: 14).

Generalized trust creates the basis for "brave reciprocity"2, social networks and associations that are that are meant to be consistent and contribute to the development of the society. Generalized trust eases exchange without a need for enforcement and thus reduces

(42)

transaction costs. This is the basis of cognitive social capital, which has been argued to be important in a country’s institutional and economic development (Knack and Keefer 1997; Zak and Knack 2001). Other scholars suggest that social capital is a form of generalized trust, and therefore, its contribution to economic and agricultural development is always equal (Fafchamps and Minten 2001).

Trust and social capital can be so tightly connected as to prevent the ending of relationships when they are practically created in a society. In ethnically diverse societies, however, generalized trust appears to be low compared to homogenous societies. Studies by Alesina and la Ferrara find that racially diverse societies have lower levels of generalized trust than homogenous ones, which, according to them, reduces the efficiency of public services. This thesis attempts to prove the opposite mechanism whereby public policies impact the level of generalized trust (Alesina and La Ferrara 2000). Trust plays an important role, particularly when considering multi-ethnic groups living in the same society. Yet what, more precisely, is generalized trust?

2.8 Conclusion

With the rise of trans-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary research approaches within political science and sociology, the number of studies on social capital has increased significantly in different contexts that add to the academic literature by the emergence of different social capital theories. This thesis considers social capital in divided societies as a continually changing measure depending on the existing context. The context could be a change in the institutions, and this thesis examines and argues that institutions have a strong impact on the level of generalized trust, and therefore, social capital. This approach is closely related to the social psychological approach in examining social capital (Welzel et al. 2005). Sometimes, social capital refers to generalized trust, or the two can be used

(43)

interchangeably in this context. The reasons behind this is that most scientists agree that generalized trust constitutes the major part of social capital, however, they disagree on how much associational networks among individual contribute to social capital.

Divided societies present a unique environment for the study of social capital due to the educational, social, cultural and spatial division that exists between different religious and ethnic groups. Considering the high potential for social capital to contribute to the stability of societies, social capital plays an important role in inter and intra-group relations. Advancing research on social capital in divided societies requires more consideration. The models of social cooperation and trust and how they affect the level of social capital need thorough examination considering that ethnically/politically divided societies are easy to examine. Moreover, the impact of urban space in divided societies matters as the membership of voluntary association and activism affect social capital. Given the fact that ethnically divided societies may be spatially separated along ethnic lines as well, urban designation and separation need to be understood on a macro perspective in relation to how generalized trust, as the main component of social capital, can be maintained or destroyed.

(44)

CHAPTER 3 TRUST AND INSTITUTIONS

“The importance of trust pervades the most diverse situations where cooperation is at one and the same time a vital and fragile commodity: from marriage to economic development, from buying a second-hand car to international affairs, from the minutiae of social life to the continuation of life on earth.” (Gambetta 1988 ii)

In this thesis, generalized trust refers to trust between strangers and unspecified people. This kind of trust is not based on self-interests or anything else; rather, it is the personal belief that most people can be trusted, without fearing that they may cause harm. Despite the attention this has been given by sociologists and political scientists, few studies have examined the concept of generalized trust thoroughly from an institutional perspective. Although many among these great studies derived a sharp conclusion, they have seldom examined generalized trust and its source in institutions from the different analytical levels of an interdisciplinary approach. There is more of a focus by sociologists on generalized trust and its research than by political scientists. However, in the last few decades, more interdisciplinary studies have examined generalized trust. Welch et al argue that generalized trust is necessary for providing meaningful social relations, and it reflects the functioning heart of healthy society, polity and democracy (Welch et al, 2005).

3.1 The Centrality of Generalized Trust

The centrality of generalized trust has been touched on by Fukuyama, who describes social capital as “capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or in a certain parts of it” (Fukuyama 1995). He argues that trust is embodied in the smallest social groups,

&apos;TRUSTING THE OTHER: GENERALIZED TRUST IN DIVIDED SOCIETIES&apos;

G

S

S

P

S

D

S

P

S

P

.

D.

P

P

S

-

XXVIII

C

P

.

D.

D

“Trusting the Other: Generalized Trust in Divided Societies”

D

S

S

:

SPS/04

S

:

P

.

A

D

P

.

D.

C

:

A

A

D

:

P

.

F

Z

UNIVERSITÀ

DEGLI

STUDI

DI

MILANO

G

S

S

P

S

D

S

P

S

P

.

D.

P

P

S

-

XXVIII

C

P

.

D.

D

D

S

S

:

SPS/04

'TRUSTING THE OTHER: GENERALIZED TRUST IN DIVIDED SOCIETIES'